Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who can be saved? A Christian perspective
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 286 of 466 (187232)
02-21-2005 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by wmscott
02-21-2005 8:31 AM


Re: Was there a day old baby in Sodom? It was Sodom.
quote:
...any decent family types had apparently left the area.
This seems wrong on several accounts. First of all, plenty of decent family types live in indecent, non-family environments, no?
And pleny of indecent, non-family types still manage to have children.
The assumption that there were no children in Sodom when it was destroyed appears to be a rationalization to get the Biblical text to agree with one's 21st century sensibilities.
Do you also believe that there were no children on the earth when Noah's flood began?
Edited to complete a previous incomplete edit.
This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 02-21-2005 13:55 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by wmscott, posted 02-21-2005 8:31 AM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by wmscott, posted 02-22-2005 5:03 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 287 of 466 (187237)
02-21-2005 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by wmscott
02-21-2005 8:31 AM


Re: Was there a day old baby in Sodom? It was Sodom.
wmscott bloviates:
quote:
Easy on the hatred Brain, so you really hate Christians. I can't blame you for hating the hypocritical ones, but you seem to hate all and God as well. Your hatred is blinding your mind to reasonable thought. Hatred such as yours is the seeds from which prejudice and intolerance grown, if allowed to grown in your heart and mind long enough, you will one day do terrible things. The thoughts of today, tend to be the actions of tomorrow. Is that the kind of person you wish to become? I would suggest you sit down and think things over, and try to get at least get a less intolerant view of things. People do reap what they sow, what people do, does tend to come back to them in time. So don't let yourself be consumed and twisted by the flames of hate.
This nonsense was posted in response to Brian's statement:
This is also a problem as to why God allowed Lot to survive. Surely this incestuous drunk would be counted as wicked and punished for his future deeds? If it is good enough for a baby to die before it commits wicked acts then it should be good enough for Lot.
Sounds to me like it was hatred of Lot and people who hold Lot in high esteem as a paragon of virtue (like the NT, which refers to this coward as "rightous"). You seem to be such a one.
Do you defend Lot for trying to pimp out his virgin daughters in the most egregious act of cowardice in all literature? Do you defend him for getting drunk and screwing those same daughters shortly after the untimely death of his wife? Do you believe he is "rightous"?
Answer the questions and leave out the dreck about hatred, k?

Keep America Safe AND Free!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by wmscott, posted 02-21-2005 8:31 AM wmscott has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4958 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 288 of 466 (187238)
02-21-2005 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by wmscott
02-21-2005 8:31 AM


Re: Was there a day old baby in Sodom? It was Sodom.
hi w,
Yes certainly a reasonable assumption for a normal city, which Sodom was not. (Genesis 18:20) "Jehovah said: "The cry of complaint about Sodom and Gomorrah, yes, it is loud, and their sin, yes, it is very heavy." Considering the 'loud' 'cry of complaint about Sodom', and the lack of righteous people found there, any decent family types had apparently left the area.
The bold words are not found in the text and are merely what you wish to believe is true. There is nothing to suggest that ‘decent’ family types had left the area. There is textual evidence against this though in the shape of what must have been a righteous family, namely Lot, his wife and two daughters. So, if all the decent family types had left, then that suggests that Lot and his family were not decent, and deserved to die with the rest of Sodom. Thus, your claim is incorrect and unsupported.
Of the remaining men left in the city, they were all homosexual.
So, you are saying that all homosexuals are wicked and deserve to die, deary me, so much for Christian love.
This was not a place to raise children.
There are many places that are not fit to raise children that doesn’t mean that there aren’t any there.
However, given the time frame we are talking about, it may not have been so easy to just get up and leave.
Which is why I say that there were probably few, if any children, there at the time.
Which is still speculation.
But, by your ‘apologetic’ in the earlier reply, apparently if any children had been there then they deserved to die because God can see into the future and would have killed them for the evil that they would have done when they were older!
This is a complete contradiction of course when we consider how evil and perverted Lot was. So your excuse doesn’t work here either.
See the book "The Destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah, and Jericho; Geological, Climatological, and Archaeological Background" David Neev, K.O. Emery, Oxford University Press, 1995.
Eh? I have to go out and buy a book to see your answer?
What kind of way is that to discuss anything, will I name some books for you to read and this some how is acceptable?
Bright, S. J. (1972) A history of Israel, SCM Press, London.
Dever, W. G. (1985) "Syro-Palestinian and Biblical Archaeology" in
Knight G. The Hebrew Bible and its Modern Interpreters, Fortress Press ; Chico Calif. : Scholars Press, Philadelphia, Pa.
Drinkard, J. F., Mattingly, G. L., Miller, J., Maxwell and Callaway, J. A. (1988) Benchmarks in time and culture : an introduction to the history and methodology of Syro-Palestinian archaeology, Scholars Press, Atlanta, Ga.
Gordon, C. H. (1954) The Patriarchal Narratives, JNES 13 56-59
Gottwald, N. K. (1979) The tribes of Yahweh : a sociology of the religion of liberated Israel, 1250-1050 B.C.E, SCM Press, London.
Levy, T. E. (1995) The archaeology of society in the Holy Land, Leicester University Press, London.
Miller, J. D. and Hayes, J. H. (1986) A history of Ancient Israel and Judah, SCM Press, London.
Moorey, P. R. S. (1991) A century of Biblical archaeology, Lutterworth Press, Cambridge.
I could go on and on and on, but what is the point.
Why not summaraise the arguments instead of asking someone to read a book?
Now if you believe the tale hypothetical, a moral story, why do you insist on God killing the innocents?
Where did I say God killed any innocents?
All I asked is how a one day old baby could be deemed wicked;
****I didn’t say a one day old baby wasn’t wicked****.
You could have said because the baby’s ancestor betrayed God’s trust in the Garden of Eden, or some other reason. I never said the baby was innocent.
The evidence from our most detailed account, the Bible, states that there were no innocents destroyed.
So, if there was a day old baby then what could that baby have done that was seen as wicked?
The wickedness that you keep seeing is in your own mind.
Why is it in my mind, the reason that Sodom’s inhabitants were destroyed was because of the sin that the city committed. Is sin not something connected to wickedness?
You want to see God as wicked, so you can claim a reason for not believing in him
The God of the Old Testament is clearly a wicked and jealous barbarian, but this isn’t the reason why I don’t believe in him.
Easy on the hatred Brain, so you really hate Christians.
I don’t hate anyone William, I am an atheist and I am not capable of hate.
I can't blame you for hating the hypocritical ones, but you seem to hate all and God as well.
How can I hate a being that I do not even believe exists? God is not a feature of my life so I have no reason to hate or like Him.
Your hatred is blinding your mind to reasonable thought.
Let’s get back to reasonable thought then, and have you answer my questions instead of having a little rant at me and taking people’s attention away from the questions.
According to the Bible God said there is no righteous in Sodom, that was when Lot was living there with his wife and daughters. Now Lot should have been killed with the rest of the inhabitants of Sodom because he could not have been righteous according to God.
We see how disgusting a creature this man is when he offers up his daughters for gang rape to the people surrounding his house, so Lot is clearly a nasty piece of work.
God’s seeing into the future and killing a baby who may be evil in the future causes a problem relating to why God allowed Lot to survive.
Very soon after leaving Sodom we all know what this incestuous drunk would do, thus God should know what Lot would do, so I can only assume that it is righteous to get both your daughters pregnant and be a drunken sod as well, is this what God considers righteous?
Hatred such as yours is the seeds from which prejudice and intolerance grown, if allowed to grown in your heart and mind long enough, you will one day do terrible things.
I don’t hate anyone William, get a grip and answer the questions.
The thoughts of today, tend to be the actions of tomorrow. Is that the kind of person you wish to become? I would suggest you sit down and think things over, and try to get at least get a less intolerant view of things.
I am the most tolerant person in the world, just because you have difficulty in accepting that God is an evil tyrant, you don’t have to dodge the questions, just admit that you don’t have an answer. Do what other Christians do when they are stuck, just say God had a reason and we are not to question the ways of God. That would at least be better than your armchair psychology.
So don't let yourself be consumed and twisted by the flames of hate.
Don’t worry, I won’t.
I don’t hate any one William, so you can leave that excuse for not answering questions out of things.
So, why was Lot considered by God to be righteous?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by wmscott, posted 02-21-2005 8:31 AM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by CK, posted 02-21-2005 3:05 PM Brian has replied
 Message 291 by Chiroptera, posted 02-21-2005 5:43 PM Brian has replied
 Message 296 by wmscott, posted 02-22-2005 5:08 PM Brian has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 289 of 466 (187240)
02-21-2005 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Brian
02-21-2005 2:53 PM


Re: Was there a day old baby in Sodom? It was Sodom.
Old chestnuts roasting on a open fire....
you evil hater you!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Brian, posted 02-21-2005 2:53 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Brian, posted 02-21-2005 5:41 PM CK has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4958 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 290 of 466 (187278)
02-21-2005 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by CK
02-21-2005 3:05 PM


Re: Was there a day old baby in Sodom? It was Sodom.
Yeah, I'm a nasty piece of work because I think genocide is pretty bad form!
If W thinks im evil he should see me after a few Aftershock/Sours slammers! LOL
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by CK, posted 02-21-2005 3:05 PM CK has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 291 of 466 (187279)
02-21-2005 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Brian
02-21-2005 2:53 PM


Re: Was there a day old baby in Sodom? It was Sodom.
quote:
Of the remaining men left in the city, they were all homosexual.
So, you are saying that all homosexuals are wicked and deserve to die, deary me, so much for Christian love.
Sorry to butt in again, but could someone remind me why it is assumed that homosexuality is the particular sin that was committed in Sodom and Gomorrha?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Brian, posted 02-21-2005 2:53 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Brian, posted 02-21-2005 6:02 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4958 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 292 of 466 (187284)
02-21-2005 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Chiroptera
02-21-2005 5:43 PM


Re: Was there a day old baby in Sodom? It was Sodom.
Hi,
Sorry to butt in again
Great pun!!
Seriously, it derives from the Hebrew word 'yada' in Genesis 19:5, which can be taken to mean sexual intercourse, (yada means 'to know')it is thus assumed that Sodom's sin was of a sexual nature, specifically against Lot's guests.
It is by no means certain though, as Ezekiel identifies Sodom's sin as pride and lack of care for the poor and needy:
Ezekiel 16:49
'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
By far the most numerous contexts of the references to Sodom in the Bible suggest that it was for violating the ancient code of hospitality to strangers! Even Jesus said this in Luke 10:10-12
But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, 11‘Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.’ 12I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town.
Isaiah 3; relates to inhospitality too, as does 13:19, and Jeremiah 23:14.
And among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible: They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns from his wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me; the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah
I think it is the name that makes a lot of people think that homosexuality was the particular sin.
But it is uncertain what the great sin was.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Chiroptera, posted 02-21-2005 5:43 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Chiroptera, posted 02-22-2005 9:53 AM Brian has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 293 of 466 (187466)
02-22-2005 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Brian
02-21-2005 6:02 PM


Re: Was there a day old baby in Sodom? It was Sodom.
quote:
Great pun!!
Yeah, I saw it after I typed it, but decided to leave it in. As a test to see if anyone else has as dirty a mind as I do.
Thanks for the reply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Brian, posted 02-21-2005 6:02 PM Brian has not replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 294 of 466 (187556)
02-22-2005 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Chiroptera
02-21-2005 1:54 PM


Thank you for pointing out my error to me.
Dear Chiroptera;
The assumption that there were no children in Sodom when it was destroyed appears to be a rationalization to get the Biblical text to agree with one's 21st century sensibilities.
Yes, I have realized that you are right, I am guilty of trying to do just that. Thank you for pointing out my error to me, I hadn't realized that my thinking was being limited by my cultural mind set. But in the case of Sodom I do view it as a possibility. In Sodom, 100% of the male population was homosexual, in the USA it is something like 0.5% with less than 5% having homosexual tendances in surveys. While the percentage of homosexuals in a population is heavily influenced by culture, a 100% figure seems only possible through selective population effects. Or in other words, the non homosexuals left town and the percentage went up. As the percentage went up, so did the pressure for other people to leave. This selective migration factor may be what resulted in the 100%, call it the San Francisco effect.
Do you also believe that there were no children on the earth when Noah's flood began?
My personal speculation is, that there were no Homo Sapiens Sapiens children on the earth when the flood began, which is also why the flood was necessary.
But if you want to argue, (Exodus 12:29) "And it came about that at midnight Jehovah struck every firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh sitting on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the prison hole, and every firstborn of beast." Why quibble over children who may or may not have been in Sodom when you have this account of a direct act of God which killed the first born children of an entire nation? It is not a question of whether or not they were in town, they were the target. So if the argument is about God killing children, that is case to argue.
Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Chiroptera, posted 02-21-2005 1:54 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 295 of 466 (187557)
02-22-2005 5:08 PM


Closing this
This seems to be veering totally OT and it's right at the witching point anyway. Closing this and if anyone wants to persue the Sodom topic start a new PNT.
This message has been edited by AdminJar, 02-22-2005 16:09 AM

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 296 of 466 (187558)
02-22-2005 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Brian
02-21-2005 2:53 PM


Re: Was there a day old baby in Sodom? It was Sodom.
Dear Brian;
There is nothing to suggest that 'decent' family types had left the area. There is textual evidence against this though in the shape of what must have been a righteous family, namely Lot, his wife and two daughters. So, if all the decent family types had left, then that suggests that Lot and his family were not decent, and deserved to die with the rest of Sodom. Thus, your claim is incorrect and unsupported.
I have already posted on why I think that they had. Lot had no young children, both of his daughters were of marriageable age. As to why he didn't leave, both of this daughters were engaged to local men and his wife clearly didn't want to leave. He was probably faced with the choice of staying or possibly having to leave his family behind in Sodom. My argument that there may have been no young children at the time of it's destruction, is speculation on my part, but so is the reverse, we are not told clearly one way or the other.
So, you are saying that all homosexuals are wicked and deserve to die, deary me, so much for Christian love.
"What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God's kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men," (1 Corinthians 6:9)
(Leviticus 20:13) "'And when a man lies down with a male the same as one lies down with a woman, both of them have done a detestable thing. They should be put to death without fail. Their own blood is upon them."
(Romans 1:27) "and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error."
Why not summaraise the arguments instead of asking someone to read a book?
Because you obviously need too. I was referring to the fact that the book existed, which proved your agruemnt false, that there was 'no' evidence of the destruction of Sodom. The book "The Destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah, and Jericho; Geological, Climatological, and Archaeological Background" David Neev, K.O. Emery, Oxford University Press, 1995. is available for sale on Amazon, here is the description they have for it.
The story of the destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah, and Jericho--three cities situated along a major fault line extending 1,100 kilometers from the Red Sea to Turkey--is the oldest such description in human history. In this book, noted geologists K.O. Emery and David Neev have revisited that story to shed light on what happened there some 4,350 years ago. With all the benefits of modern geological and forensic science techniques at their disposal, the authors explore an area where earthquakes, volcanic activity, variations in the Dead Sea's level, and oscillations between arid and wet climates have affected life there for over 10,000 years. In reviewing the geology, biblical paleogeography, and limnology of the region, the authors have produced fascinating insights into the tectonic and climatic changes that have occurred in the region over the last 6,000 years and how those changes have affected cultural life in the Middle East. The Destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah, and Jericho is the first book to combine modern science and biblical archaeology to produce an authoritative account of the of these three great cities. It will fascinate students and researchers in geology, geophysics, and archaeology alike.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail...
It has been a while since I read it, but the gist of it was that the destruction occurred just as described in the Bible, there is plenty of geological evidence for it, but they did not find the city sites and the geologic events are believed to have occurred earlier than the biblical date given in the Bible.
All I asked is how a one day old baby could be deemed wicked;
Can't. Can't be counted as righteous ether however. Young children in the Bible are sometimes lumped in with their parents, and sometimes they are not.
According to the Bible God said there is no righteous in Sodom, that was when Lot was living there with his wife and daughters. Now Lot should have been killed with the rest of the inhabitants of Sodom because he could not have been righteous according to God.
That was no one except for Lot.
We see how disgusting a creature this man is when he offers up his daughters for gang rape to the people surrounding his house, so Lot is clearly a nasty piece of work.
Think about it, he offered his daughters to a gang of homosexuals, knowing that their future husbands were in the crowd, and that two angels were behind him in the house. Also, he didn't bring his daughters out with him when he stepped out into the night by himself to face the mob, and closed the door behind himself and stood in front of it and blocked the door with his body. He showed that he was willing to risk his own daughters to protect Jehovah's angels, angels which he knew could have destroyed the whole town in a blink of an eye. You don't understand the culture, he never intended any harm to come to his daughters, this was a cultural mind game. He couldn't impose on his guests by directly asking them to intervene, and as host he had to protect them. Lot fulfilled both requirements of his culture and succeeded in getting the angels to intervene without asking them to.
Very soon after leaving Sodom we all know what this incestuous drunk would do, thus God should know what Lot would do, so I can only assume that it is righteous to get both your daughters pregnant and be a drunken sod as well, is this what God considers righteous?
You are confusing righteousness with perfection, righteous people are not perfect and still sin. If you bother to read the account, Lot's daughters got him drunk and took advantage of him. (Genesis 19:35) "So they repeatedly gave their father wine to drink during that night also; then the younger got up and lay down with him, but he did not know when she lay down and when she got up." Maybe Lot was getting a bit old by this point in time, and wasn't that aware of how much he was drinking, and then got date raped by his own daughters. If Lot had approved of his daughters family planning efforts, they wouldn't have needed to get him drunk to carry out their nefarious plan.
So, why was Lot considered by God to be righteous?
(Genesis 12:1-4) "And Jehovah proceeded to say to Abram: "Go your way out of your country and from your relatives and from the house of your father to the country that I shall show you; and I shall make a great nation out of you and I shall bless you and I will make your name great; and prove yourself a blessing. And I will bless those who bless you, and him that calls down evil upon you I shall curse, and all the families of the ground will certainly bless themselves by means of you." At that Abram went just as Jehovah had spoken to him, and Lot went with him." Abraham and Lot were faithful worshipers of Jehovah God, and when Abraham was told to leave his home land and go to a distant land, he acted in faith and Lot went with him. Lot cast his 'lot' in with Abraham, he was a man of faith.
(Genesis 19:1-3) "Now the two angels arrived at Sodom by evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot caught sight of them, then he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the earth. And he proceeded to say: "Please, now, my lords, turn aside, please, into the house of YOUR servant and stay overnight and have YOUR feet washed. Then YOU must get up early and travel on YOUR way." To this they said: "No, but in the public square is where we shall stay overnight." But he was very insistent with them, so that they turned aside to him and came into his house." Lot was also concerned about the welfare of others, and out of the whole town of Sodom, he was the only one to extend the customary hospitality of the time.
(2 Peter 2:7-8) "he delivered righteous Lot, who was greatly distressed by the indulgence of the law-defying people in loose conduct for that righteous man by what he saw and heard while dwelling among them from day to day was tormenting his righteous soul by reason of their lawless deeds" Lot was also righteous in that he hated badness, he was such a righteous person that the lawlessness of the Sodomites tormented him.
Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson
shortened url to fix page width-The Queen
This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 02-22-2005 18:24 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Brian, posted 02-21-2005 2:53 PM Brian has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 297 of 466 (531816)
10-20-2009 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by jar
10-07-2004 7:19 PM


Now thats quite an admission!
suspended jar writes:
I can't wait to see the astonishment on the faces of many an atheist when they discover not only were they wrong, GOD has prepared a place for them at the barbeque. It'll be better'n any surprise party ever.
This was a good topic that we did! I am enjoying reading some of the old posts from old members and ex members. Does anyone have any current commentary on it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by jar, posted 10-07-2004 7:19 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Stile, posted 10-23-2009 1:54 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 298 of 466 (532424)
10-23-2009 11:40 AM


In Message 92 Iano wrote:
1) We will have seen that there is no requirement to believe in Gods existance in order to pass from position:lost to position:found. That a person will have God revealed to them after they are found means we can say the person who saved must believe in God - but their belief is a marker of them having been saved, not a cause of their being saved.
The cause of their being saved is their believing God. Not believing in God.
To which I reply:
quote:
So salvation is not by faith but by believing God, and you go about believing God by what you do... your works.
This is a more appropriate place to continue the discussion if he wants to.

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Phat, posted 10-23-2009 12:11 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 303 by iano, posted 10-23-2009 3:31 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 299 of 466 (532430)
10-23-2009 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by New Cat's Eye
10-23-2009 11:40 AM


What Came First? Belief Or Evidence?
How can you believe in something you dont see, hear, taste, touch, or smell?
Its easy to believe in God once you have an initial encounter, perceived, imaginary, or otherwise. The encounter preceded the decision to believe, however.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-23-2009 11:40 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-23-2009 12:49 PM Phat has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 300 of 466 (532442)
10-23-2009 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by Phat
10-23-2009 12:11 PM


Re: What Came First? Belief Or Evidence?
How can you believe in something you dont see, hear, taste, touch, or smell?
If I'm understanding him correctly, Iano is saying that that its not the belief IN god that matters but its the believing god that matters.
God says murder is wrong. If you also think that murder is wrong then you are believing god (believing what he said) regardless of if you believe in him or not.
Make sense?
To me, this seems to make the action what is important and not the faith. But Iano is a salvation by fiath guy so I looking for clarification.
Its easy to believe in God once you have an initial encounter, perceived, imaginary, or otherwise. The encounter preceded the decision to believe, however.
To believe IN him, yes. But to believe as true the same things that he says are true, not necessarily.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Phat, posted 10-23-2009 12:11 PM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Perdition, posted 10-23-2009 1:17 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024